By Pepper Parr
September 30, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
It turned out to be the last council meeting for the lot we elected in 2010 – they did not go out with much in way of glory or respect; they sort of slinked off into the night like people who wear masks and do things they shouldn’t be doing. .
In Burlington the usual process is for Council to meet as a Standing Committee – we have two of them – where Staff Reports are presented and matters debated. Monday evening the Development and Infrastructure Committee met. There was a very good debate and discussion related to the small development on Lakeshore Road where a large bungalow is to be replaced by four custom built homes.
The issue was what this development would have on the character of the community. The Gazette will report on this development later this week.
The discussion ran longer than expected. Burlington’s council has a procedural rule that has things ending at 10:30 pm unless there is a motion to extend for an additional half hour. After that the lights go out.
Anne and Dave Marsden delegating at a city council meeting she thought should not have taken place.
It was with some surprise that media learned there was to be a Special Council meeting immediately after the Standing Committee. This type of thing has been done in the past – usually because there is a pressing matter and the usual 10 day wait time between Standing Committee and Council meetings is waived.
There was nothing pressing about any of the matters covered at the Standing Committee meeting last night – so why the rush?
It turned out that this “Special” Council meeting would be the last for this term of office before the election.
It could have and should have been an occasion when Council members could have paused and reflected on what they had achieved. It has been an interesting four year term. There was quite a bit to be proud of and some hard lessons learned – but instead Council pulled what could be seen as a fast one and held a Council meeting at which they passed matters that had been discussed and debated a mere two and a half hours earlier.
There was no opportunity for the public to inform themselves on what had taken place at the Standing Committee and appear before council to delegate if they wished.
Anne Marsden, a resident who delegates all too frequently and who has been denied the right to delegate at the Region because she tends to go off on tangents, did serve her city well when she scribbled out a note to the Clerk asking to delegate at this hastily called Special Council meeting.
Marsden is also a candidate for the Office of Mayor and you can bet the house on her haranguing on this issue at every debate during the next four weeks.
Mayor Goldring takes the chair when Council is in session and he advised Ms Marsden that she had five minutes to speak. This observer has seldom seen the Mayor as short and curt with a member of the public.
Anne Marsden – candidate for the Office of Mayor.
Anne Marsden spoke, the Mayor asked Council if there were any questions, there were none and Ms Marsden moved on to her second five minute delegation during which she castigated council for the way it was behaving. And she was not wrong.
There was not a word from the two “liberals” on this council about the shoddy treatment the democratic process had been given. Neither John Taylor nor Marianne Meed Ward said a word.
There are good reasons for creating a period of time between the Standing Committee meetings and the Council meetings where the decisions are made and the bylaws passed. That time gives the public a chance to look at what the “rascals” have done and delegate to Council if there are concerns.
Marsden was making a fundamental point. The wait period between the Standing Committee and the Council meeting is the only opportunity the public has to be informed and aware of what their elected representatives are doing – “it is a safeguard that belongs to the public” said Marsden. She added that she believed “this council is out of control”.
While some might see it as a stretch – conducting business this way is the thin edge of corrupt practices. Those who are comfortable bending the rules (and we have a couple of those on this Council ) use opportunities like this to let something slip by out of the bright lights of public review.
Council meetings are broadcast on the Cogeco cable TV network. With the Council meeting held so quickly was there an opportunity for Cogeco to know and arrange for the broadcast?
And – finally, who made the decision to re-schedule the Council decision, why was it re-scheduled and how was the public informed about the change?
The meeting was the last before the public casts their ballots on October 27th – based on the Monday night performance there is little reason to return any of them. Go on line and watch the web cast – see how your Mayor treated a delegation. His appearance is at the very end of the broadcast.
You have a right to expect better than that.
The Gazette and the other Newspapers that cover City Council are failing the electorate when they miss out the evidenced facts that the Clerk, the Mayor and Council have contravened the procedural by-laws 37-2014 and obtained a vote by deceit which is contrary to Section 123 of the Criminal Code:
“The decision to hold a Special Meeting of Council on Monday (September 29, 2013) was embarrassing and just plain wrong.” Burlington Gazette
The Burlington Gazette fails to address this is contrary to procedural by-laws 37-2014 Section 11.1 and, therefore, unlawful not just plain wrong.
There is yet another issue that fits in with the Mayor and council’s bizarre behavior in terms of ignoring the Procedural By-laws, he recently signed as approved. At the September 29, 2014 Special Meeting of Council (held contrary to Section 11.1 of the 37-2014 Procedural By-laws) there was a vote taken on a recommendation to Reconsider a Motion put forward by Meed Ward and Craven that was lost at Council December, 2013. The Procedural By-laws are very clear that:
A Motion to Reconsider can only be addressed at a GENERAL COUNCIL MEETING (NOT A COMMITTEE OR SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING)(10.2.1 – Page 42 of the Procedural By-law37-2014) This motion to reconsider was put before a Committee Development and Infrastructure and then a Special Meeting that was held contrary to Section 11.1 of the 37-2014 Procedural By-law.
Considering the motion under reconsideration referred to OPG’s plan to store nuclear waste under the Great Lakes Basin we find it hard to figure why the press is keeping quiet on this issue.
Anne and Dave Marsden, Health, Safety and Accessibility Advocates did not have this information when they delegated it was only after the meeting when they got a copy of the procedural by-laws and checked it out did this come to light.
The Editorial Board’s of all three papers need to be providing an explanation to the public for their failure to report on the Mayor, Council, Clerk and City Manager setting aside Procedural By-law 37-2014 which they just recently approved. And why they would not address this being deceit used to obtain a vote which is covered by Section 123 of the Criminal Code as Municipal Corruption.
The City Clerk and City Manager who have turned a blind eye to these contraventions of the Procedural Bylaw are responsible for overseeing the current municipal election that involves City and Regional Councillors and the Regional Chair – do the Burlington Press give a fig, apparently not.
Anne and Dave Marsden
Health, Safety and Accessibility Advocates
“Anne Marsden, a resident who delegates all too frequently and who has been denied the right to delegate at the Region because she tends to go off on tangents:” Quote from this Burlington Gazette article.
Again, the Gazette is not reporting accurate facts. The ban was not put in place for these reasons and Gary Carr heads up the refusal to give us the reason why both Anne and I are banned from delegating at Halton Region. The ban also apples to myself a respected health and safety advocate (a Crown witness associated with public safety issues) I have not delegated at Region Council prior to my retirement (that I can remember as Council met during my working hours) and I have been refused the right to delegate at Region Council on significant public safety issues since my retirement in 2010 (the management of the c-diff crisis affected over 167 families in Halton with 91 deaths recorded at JBMH) with no explanation given and supported by all members of Burlington Council including my Council representative – Marianne Meed Ward and the Mayor whose duty is to protect the best interests of citizens not the Public Health Department, which reports to Council in their role as Health Council (which has not got a single set of minutes available to the public).
Democratic rights of the citizens of Burlington and Halton to hear what respected health and safety advocates have to say what is wrong with our public health system when dealing with outbreaks is particularly of concern at this time because we have another significant virus that can bring far more tragedy to our community and families than c-diff ever did regardless of Burlington and Halton being the site of the largest c-diff crisis in Ontario.
A book on the subject “Skeletons in the Closet” by Annandave Marsden which sets out the unpublished facts that leave citizens of Burlington and Halton unprotected contrary to the legislation will hopefully be published in 2015.
Dave Marsden
Health, Safety and Accessibility (Accessibility includes to an appropriate public health system) Advocate
Donald, you are out of touch with reality.
OMG, the marsden’s need to be banned from city hall like the region. They are a disaster. Rats looking for trouble. I see the darkness in their eyes.
Pepper,
Perhaps you missed my comment – In my councillor remarks at the end of the meeting (toward 11pm) I said I agreed with the point raised by the delegation that there should always be a separation in time between committee and council meetings, unless there is a time sensitive matter which, when I asked the question of staff, they said there was none. Combining the meetings, staff said, was done for “efficiency.” Agree wholeheartedly that we should have stuck to the original calendar of a council meeting on Oct. 6., and the delegation was right to raise a concern and ask for better, and that was my comment at the meeting.
Re: “The meeting was the last before the public casts their ballots on October 27th…”
That meeting webcast seems to have become unavailable……….
Editor’s note: It did become “unavailable”. But I note that it is now fully available. Was it a “glitch” or was it deliberate? Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.
Shameful